Assessment of the role of the Edinburgh dysphagia score in referral triage in a national service evaluation of the urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal cancer pathway.

BACKGROUND: The British Society of Gastroenterology has recommended the Edinburgh Dysphagia Score (EDS) to risk-stratify dysphagia referrals during the endoscopy COVID recovery phase. AIMS: External validation of the diagnostic accuracy of EDS and exploration of potential changes to improve its diagnostic performance. METHODS: A prospective multicentre study of consecutive patients referred with dysphagia on an urgent suspected upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer pathway between May 2020 and February 2021. The sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) of EDS were calculated. Variables associated with UGI cancer were identified by forward stepwise logistic regression and a modified Cancer Dysphagia Score (CDS) developed. RESULTS: 1301 patients were included from 19 endoscopy providers; 43% male; median age 62 (IQR 51-73) years. 91 (7%) UGI cancers were diagnosed, including 80 oesophageal, 10 gastric and one duodenal cancer. An EDS ≥3.5 had a sensitivity of 96.7 (95% CI 90.7-99.3)% and an NPV of 99.3 (97.8-99.8)%. Age, male sex, progressive dysphagia and unintentional weight loss >3 kg were positively associated and acid reflux and localisation to the neck were negatively associated with UGI cancer. Dysphagia duration <6 months utilised in EDS was replaced with progressive dysphagia in CDS. CDS ≥5.5 had a sensitivity of 97.8 (92.3-99.7)% and NPV of 99.5 (98.1-99.9)%. Area under receiver operating curve was 0.83 for CDS, compared to 0.81 for EDS. CONCLUSIONS: In a national cohort, the EDS has high sensitivity and NPV as a triage tool for UGI cancer. The CDS offers even higher diagnostic accuracy. The EDS or CDS should be incorporated into the urgent suspected UGI cancer pathway.

Late acute liver allograft rejection; a study of its natural history and graft survival in the current era.

BACKGROUND: Late acute rejection (LAR) after liver transplantation is often associated with poor clinical outcomes. We reviewed our experience of managing LAR in the current era to determine its natural history. METHODS: A database of 970 consecutive adult liver transplants was reviewed retrospectively. LAR was defined as histologically proven acute cellular rejection occurring more than 90 days after transplantation. RESULTS: The incidence of LAR was 11%, with a mean time of 565 days (median, 311 days; range, 90-2922 days) after transplantation. The highest rates for LAR were in seronegative hepatitis (17%), primary biliary cirrhosis (16%), and primary sclerosing cholangitis (13%) with an odds ratio of 2.3, 2.1, and 1.8, respectively. Logistic regression showed that younger recipients, primary biliary cirrhosis, and previous graft loss were independent predictors of LAR (P<0.001). Mean trough whole blood tacrolimus levels were at their lowest levels 1 week before the diagnosis of rejection (5.5 ng/mL; SD, 2.6) compared with levels of 7.7 ng/mL 4 weeks before rejection, showing a clear temporal relation. Graft survival was worse in those with LAR (P<0.01), whereas the best graft survival was among early acute rejection cases (85% 10-year survival; P<0.01). Poor response to treatment correlated with the development of ductopenic rejection (r=0.3; P<0.01). Approximately half with early ductopenic rejection eventually died (n=15). CONCLUSION: LAR continues to provide a risk to patient and graft survival: understanding risk factors may allow an improvement in monitoring and early intervention and so prevent early graft loss.